R. Gopalkrishnan And 2 Ors vs Registrar Of Trade Unions And 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1217 Bom

                                                                   37 wp888-20.docx

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 TRUSHA
 TUSHAR                              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 MOHITE
Digitally signed by
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 888 OF 2020
TRUSHA TUSHAR                                         WITH
MOHITE
Date: 2023.02.08                     INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.1254 OF 2023
19:55:08 +0530




                      R.Gopalkrishnan and Ors.                       ..... Petitioners

                               Vs.

                      Registrar of Trade Union and Ors.              ..... Respondents


                      Mr.Sanjay Singhavi, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Rahul Kamerkar for the
                      Petitioners

                      Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar         i/b   Ms.Ranjana   Todankar       for   the
                      Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4


                                               CORAM:      S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                           SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                               DATED :     FEBRUARY 06, 2023

                      P.C. (Per Acting Chief Justice)

                      1        The Petitioners assail the order of the Registrar of Trade

Unions, Mumbai allowing the Registration of the 2018 Amendments

to the Respondent no.4 Union's Constitution.

2 Mr.Singhavi, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners

submits that the Petitioners are the members of the Respondent

no.4 Union. In the General Council Meeting of the Respondent no.4

Union, the amendments were carried out with regard to the clause of

Mohite 1/9 37 wp888-20.docx

the election of the office bearers. The Petitioners resisted the said

amendment in the General Meeting. The amendment was

challenged before the Respondent no.1 by filing an Application.

3 One Mr.Ramasare J. Yadav and Mr.Ram Chandra Nana Katkar

challenged the said amendment. However, the Registrar only on the

ground that the General Body / Council of Respondent no.4 has

passed the said amendment, did not interfere in the matter and

dismissed the complaint. The same is assailed in the present Writ

Petition. According to the learned Senior Advocate, amendment

sought is against the democratic principles. As per the said

amendment, the President can only be a person having minimum

three years working experience in any of the post as President

Working President / Executive President / General Secretary of the

Union thereby limiting the persons to be elected as President. The

same ought to have been considered on the touch stone of the

democratic principles.

4 The learned Advocate for the Respondents submits that the

Petitioners never raised any objection to the amendment either in

the meeting of the General Council or before Respondent no.1. The

objection dated 01.10.2018 and 03.10.2018 were filed before the

Registrar of Trade Union by Mr.Ramasare J. Yadav and Mr.Ram

Mohite 2/9 37 wp888-20.docx

Chandra Nana Katkar and not the Petitioners. Mr.Ramasare J.

Yadav joined the rival Union i.e. Mumbai Port Trust Kamgar Ekta

Union on 02.09.2019 and instructed the Mumbai Port Trust to

deduct the union membership subscription in favour of Mumbai Port

Trust Kamgar Ekta Union.

5 Mr.Ramasare J. Yadav retired from the service on 01.06.2021

and thereafter, ceased to be a member of Respondent no.4 Union.

The services of Mr.Ram Chandra Nana Katkar were terminated on

21.04.2018 and thereafter, ceased to be a member. The Petitioners

have also retired from service. The Petitioners did not have locus

standi to maintain the present Writ Petition. The Petitioner no.2

also joined the rival union viz. Mumbai Port Trust Kamgar Ekta

Union on 02.09.2019. The Petitioner no.1 retired from service on

01.10.2020 and the Petitioner no.2 retired from service on

01.02.2020 and Petitioner no.3 retired recently.

6 Mr.Singhvi, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner

submits that the Writ Petition is still maintainable. The position as

on the date the Petition was filed, is required to be considered. The

learned Senior Advocate to buttress his submissions relies upon the

judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Beg Raj Singh vs. State

of U.P. and Ors.1, Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General

1 (2003) 1 SCC 726.

Mohite                                                         3/9
                                                  37 wp888-20.docx

Traders2 and Rajesh D.Darbar and Others vs. Narasingrao Krishnaji

Kulkarni and Others3. The learned Senior Advocate submits that the

Writ Petition is pending since the year 2020. Only because the

matter is pending and is not decided, the same should not be

detrimental to the Petitioners.

7 We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

counsel for the parties.

8 From the record, it does not appear that the Petitioners at any

point of time during the General Body Meeting opposed the

amendment. The amendment that was sought to be assailed is as

under:

ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS

1. President The President shall be elected by the General Council from among General Council Members including Honorary Members who is having a minimum 3 years working experience in any of the post at President / Working President / Executive President / General Secretary of the Union.

2. Vice 2 persons to be elected each from their Presidents respective Constituency as notified at the time of election as per the strength of membership, but shall not be more than 6 Vice Presidents.

3.      General          The General Secretary shall be elected by the
        Secretary        General Council from among General Council

2    (1975) 1 SCC 770
3    (2003) 7 SCC 219.

Mohite                                                              4/9
                                              37 wp888-20.docx

                      Members including Honorary Members who is
                      having   minimum      three   years   working

experience as President / Working President / Executive President / General Secretary of the Union.

4. Secretaries 2 persons each shall be elected from the constituencies mentioned in clause 8(I) and (II) and 3 persons shall be elected from the constituency mentioned in Clause 8(III) above.

9 Amendment sought to be challenged before Respondent no.1 is

dated 26.09.2018. The amendment dated 26.09.2018 to the

Constitution of Respondent no.4 Union was assailed by one

Mr.Ramasare J. Yadav and Mr.Ram Chandra Nana Katkar on

01.10.2018 and 03.10.2018 by filing complaint/objection before

Respondent no.1. Mr.Ramasare J. Yadav joined the rival Union i.e.

Mumbai Port Trust Kamgar Ekta Union on 02.09.2019. The services

of Mr.Ram Chandra Nana Katkar were terminated on 21.04.2018.

As such Mr.Ram Chandra Nana Katkar ceased to be a member of

Respondent no.4 Union from 21.04.2018 and Mr.Ramasare J. Yadav

from 02.09.2019.

10 The complaint/objection to the amendment was rejected by the

Registrar of Trade Union under order dated 01.11.2018. These

persons who had filed the objection to the amendment never filed

any Writ Petition.

Mohite                                                          5/9
                                               37 wp888-20.docx


11       On or about 16.01.2020 after lapse of more than one year, the

Petitioners filed the instant Writ Petition challenging the order dated

01.11.2018 of the Registrar of Trade Union. As observed above, the

Petitioners had never raised any objection before the Registrar of

Trade Union nor in the meeting of the General Council. The

Petitioner no.2 had already joined the rival Union i.e. Mumbai Port

Trust Kamgar Ekta Union on 02.09.2019. Petitioner no.1 retired

from the service on 01.10.2020 and the Petitioner no.2 retired from

the service on 01.02.2020. It does appear that upon retirement,

Petitioners ceased to be the members of the Respondent no.4 Union.

12 The Petitioner no.3 also recently has retired. The same is not

disputed. It is also not disputed that upon retirement, the

membership of the Union ceases.

13 Today none of the Petitioners are the members of Respondent

no.4 Union. As the Petitioners are not the members of the

Respondent no.4 Union, they would not be concerned with the

amendment to the Constitution of Respondent no.4 Union.

14 Reliance on the judgment referred to above may not enure to

the benefit of the Petitioners. The case of Beg Raj Singh (Supra) was

altogether on different facts. In the said case, the mining lease was

Mohite 6/9 37 wp888-20.docx

granted to the appellant thereunder for one year. Thereafter

renewal was sought for another two years. The same was granted by

the Collector. However, the State Government decided to hold an

auction of the mining rights setting aside the order of the Collector.

The Apex Court held that the Government having incurred

obligation to grant lease for three years in accordance with its own

policy decision, it cannot decline to enforce the same merely because

a little more revenue can be earned. The sand mine was not operated

for full three years. As the operation had to be stopped because of

the order of the State Government, the Apex Court in view of that,

directed that appellant therein should be allowed to operate mine for

a full period of three years subject to adjustment of the period for

which he had already operated.

15 In case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu (Supra), the matter was

arising out of the provisions of Rent Act wherein the landlord sought

eviction on the ground of personal requirement. In that premise, the

Apex Court observed that the right to relief must be judged to exist

as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding

16 In the case of Rajesh D.Darbar and Others (Supra), the issue

was with regard to legality of the membership, and whether they can

participate in the election. The legality of the membership is an

Mohite 7/9 37 wp888-20.docx

issue which required decision irrespective of the fact whether the

period for which the Committee was elected has expired or not. In

the said case, elected committee started functioning from October

1996 and subsequent Committees were elected as the term of office

was three years. The Apex court observed that the basic dispute

about the eligibility of the thirty-eight persons was continued.

17 In the present case, all these Petitioners have ceased to be

members of Respondent no.4 Union. The Petitioners want to

continue with this petition challenging the amendment to the

Constitution of Respondent no.4 for which the Petitioners now would

not be affected nor concerned. The Petitioners would now be alien to

the Constitution of Respondent no.4. Their rights or interest cannot

be held to be jeopardized because of the amendment under challenge

of the Constitution of Respondent no.4. The Petitioners would not

now be remotely concerned with the constitution of Respondent no.4

and or its amendment. The right to sue that was available to the

Petitioners at the time of filing of the petition would not survive

because of the changed circumstance i.e. cessation of their

membership as members of Respondent no.4 Union. Cause of action

now would not subsist. With the passage of time, the cause of action

has come to an end.

Mohite                                                          8/9
                                                 37 wp888-20.docx

18       No purpose would be served by continuing with the Writ

Petition. Even assuming that the Petitioners on the date of filing of

the Writ Petition had some semblance of rights and cause of action to

institute the Writ Petition, the same would not subsist upon the

Petitioners retiring from service and consequently ceased to be the

members of Respondent no.4 Union. It is not the case of the

Petitioners that even after retirement, they continued to be the

members of Respondent no.4 Union. Now the Petitioners would have

no relation with Respondent no.4 inter alia would not have any

cause of action nor right of action to challenge the amendment to the

Constitution of the Union. The amendment made to the constitution

of Respondent no.4 now would not apply to the Petitioners nor the

Petitioners can claim any right nor will be bound by any obligation

under constitution of the Respondent no.4 Union.

19 In light of the above, Writ Petition does not merit consideration

and the same is dismissed. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                       (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Mohite                                                             9/9